Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:46, 6 September 2005

Responses

Thanks for the all comments ...

lots of edits, not an admin

Rick Block : Howdy, been around long enough? Yea ... I was more involved a bit ago though. made lots of edits but aren't admins? Yea, I've made a few edits. Some good, some bad ... all in good faith, though. Hopefully more on the good side than the other, but that is for others to decide. I'm kinda ambivalent to being a administrator or bureaucrat right now, mabey some other time (when I am able to be online more). not active anymore? Not for the most part ... I haven't been online for some time. I do miss adding the information though. interested in becoming an admin? Mabey later. add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? Ok ... I will if I get online more often and start editing articles again. suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list? nice idea, hope you help some ppl out on on becoming admins. marked on this list as "inactve"? Yep ... that sounds about right. I'll change it if I comeback regurally. update this? No need to right now, I'll be offline for a bit more. Maby when I get to comeback online more steadily I will. Thanks. No problem, thank you. JDR 00:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Radiation

Smack - Revert changes to Radiation? I didn't mean to offend . Just thought that the expanded version is a bit better. Many of the types of radiation require a bit of explanation for an uninitiated reader. It's easier to have the definitions each entry (that way ppl can find the right one they are looking for without extra clicks). For the overall consistancy of the page, I listed the common ones, too. Conform to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)? The defintion part seems to be disputed in the MoS(dab). Any wlnk in the def should be removed though (as the talk indicates om the MoS). JDR 17:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rotating magnetic field dispute

SCZenz -- Rotating magnetic field info should go in the article the wlnk redirects to. Mabey it needs to be redirected somewhere else? I would keep it there, though. JDR 17:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Tesla turbine

Flominator : Tesla turbine - Are you sure that those pictures are PD? The turbine/pump pic is from the US patent 1061206 (Turbine; 1909). This copyright should have expired. The system picture is from 1922 drawing (Economic Transformation of the Energy of Steam by Turbines; GB186083). This copyright should have expired. JDR

Flominator : Which laws have to be applied here? US Patent law and British patent law. The American patent is covered here: template:PD-US-patent (this page is cited in the template). The USPTO states "Patents are published into the public domain as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor" and allows "the facsimile reproduction by any­one of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records". I believe that British patent law is similar. In Germany for example the creator has to be dead for over 70 years, which is not the case with Tesla. The American law is different. The US patent definetly is in the public domain. I'll poke around and see if I can find a reference for English law stipulation. JDR 19:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems that this page states that the protection is very much like the USPTO (say it protects manufacture, use, importation or sale; It seems to imply that there is not a prohibition on the the " facsimile reproduction"). I'll keep loo,king into it though. JDR 20:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

These are great news. Thank you very much for looking it up and for notifying me on my talk-page! --Flominator 21:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Odd post

213.138.128.13 - Hello! We have to find a way and I can teach you to do so. The easiest way of learning a way is to vandalise Misplaced Pages. It is a very easy way of learning a way. Everyone who can access to Internet can do so. Vandalising Misplaced Pages is also very nice: the vandal gets always blocked (so will do I too). If you want to find a way, you can leave a comment to my talk page.

Please refrain from such silliness. Noted this to an wiki.admin also. JDR 17:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: This paragraph in "Iraqi Civil War":

• It is unknown whether the establishment of a democratic government will gradually reduce or eliminate the passions that currently fuel the sectarian conflicts and violent civil unrest.

There was no need to move that to the opening, it was fine where it was. Your original edit of the opening was excellent - it concisely summarized the article and flowed smoothly into the introduction. Please don't mess up your own work by over-editing! The article as it stands is very good, and presents both of the opposing viewpoints fairly and neutrally. =) Xaa 20:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency

Left this setion intact. JDR 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't protect your edits or anyone else's right now on Iraqi insurgency. -Ril-, a super-troublemaker just got on the page and is helping NoPuzzleStranger, mostly just to cause as much of a problem as possible. Anyhow, I think I reverted 3 times already. --Noitall 19:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Encouraging other editors to join edit wars is totally inappropriate. Furthermore, edits on behalf of another editor who has requested them to be made, to avoid the editor breaking policy (e.g. 3RR), are explicitely forbidden by arbcom precedent. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, *I* get it, now. Exact same two messages as on my page. Okay. Hmmm... Yuck. I don't want to be dragged into this, I think I'll just let the two of them alone. Xaa 18:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good job getting rid of the vandalism Reddi. It was your edits I was trying to protect from NPS when -Ril- got involved. Unfortunately, he is a troll, see comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany, so that is why he left threats over here. Sorry, but I can't control -Ril-. --Noitall 19:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I still think the proposal I posted to here is a better solution overall - it resolves more than the VfD problem, but also resolves the very problem these two are having right now; if it doesn't cite, it doesn't stay. Xaa 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Math equations to plain english

Thryduulf : I've copied your suggestion from Misplaced Pages talk:MediaWiki namespace text to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals), where more people will see it. Great idea, thanks for the copy to a better place. JDR 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Question....

Dark Mark : Well, it seems you have been around basically forever, but I have a question. Is there a reason you don't use the subject box when you edit? I don't intentionally ignore the subject box. Is it a forgetful thing, or a conscious choice? Mostly a forgetful thing (or in a rush), though I (on rare occassions) avoid it (eg., minor edit, don't know what to put in, etc.). I see that the guidelines state that a short summary is better than no summary. Just wondering? No problem. I do the same on the checkboxes manytimes too. JDR 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely response. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort 19:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

New criticism, comments, and feedback

Judeo-Christian

Why did you think that this should be part of Category:Abrahamic mythology? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises

I have removed the Speedy deletion tag you added to Misplaced Pages talk pages discussing the categorization of religious beliefs as mythology (disambiguation). This page was created as supplemental material for a proposed POV tag regarding the disputed categorization of religious beliefs as mythology. User:DJ Clayworth has moved it to my user talk page, with my consent. If you would like to join the discussion of the possible use of the tag itself, your contributions to Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises would be appreciated. Thanks, JHCC (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

To always assume that those who oppose you are motivated by pure opinion (without raising any factual points which you need address), while you yourself always possess pure facts without opinion, is not the way to have a constructive dialogue. AnonMoos 04:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR at Ark of the Covenant

Reddi, you have violated the 3 revert rule at Ark of the Covenant. In fact, you have now reverted the page 5 times. I strongly recommend you revert yourself before you are blocked. Jayjg 20:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Users not currently active